Union of India vs P. Narasimhan

Satish K. Agnihotri, J.—The challenge before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench was to the order No. 7408/P&A/BG dated 08.08.2011, whereby the representation dated 26.7.2011 of the first respondent (applicant therein) for grant of subsistence allowance, regular increment, HRA and transport allowance, was rejected by the appellants herein. The first respondent preferred the original application seeking the following reliefs :

(a) to set aside Order No. 7408/P&A/DG dated 08.08.2011 issued by the first respondent.

(b) consequently direct the respondents to revise the rate of payment of subsistence allowance from 50% to 75% with effect from 01.11.2009.

(c) further direct the respondents to take into account the regular annual increment in the revised pay scale with effect from 01.01.2006, for the purpose of determining the subsistence allowance and

(d) further direct the respondents to pay family planning allowance at the rate of Rs.800/- with effect from 01.08.2009, and

(e) further direct the respondents to pay transport allowance from 01.08.2009

(f) and further direct the respondents to pay H.R.A. as admissible to the applicant from 20.04.2009 i.e. from the date of joining at Ordnance Factory, Trichy.

(g) further direct the respondents to pay the applicant, arrears of the above referred allowances along with interest at 12% per annum, within a time limit to be stipulated by this Hon''ble Tribunal

The Tribunal, having examined the case from all angles, came to the conclusion that the first respondent was entitled to subsistence allowance at the enhanced rate of 75% with effect from 01.11.2009 after completion of three months from the date of suspension, i.e., 29.7.2009. On the issue of Family Planning Allowance (FPA), the Tribunal held that the first respondent was not entitled for the same. In case of transport allowance and HRA, it was held that the first respondent was not entitled. Further, it was held that the first respondent was entitled to regular annual increment in the revised pay scale with effect from 01.01.2006 and also 75% subsistence allowance on the said revised amount with effect from 01.11.2009. The appellants were further directed to pay arrears of the allowances with interest at 9% per annum.

The first respondent (applicant therein) did not challenge the order of the Tribunal, whereunder the claim of the first respondent for enhanced FPA, transport allowance and HRA was rejected. The appellants/respondents therein question only the grant of regular increment and also the payment of 75% subsistence allowance on the amount after taking into account the regular annual increment in the revised pay scale.

Mr.S.Udayakumar, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners, Union of India, would contend that the first respondent is not entitled to regular annual increment during suspension period. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relies on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Jaswant Singh Kanwar, . To this contention, even the learned counsel for the first respondent has no serious objection as the law is well settled that an employee is entitled to increment only when he works for full year and drawing full salary.

In the case on hand, admittedly during suspension period, the first respondent was neither working nor drawing full salary and as such, the Tribunal fell into error in directing the appellants to determine the subsistence allowance by taking into account the regular annual increment in the revised pay scale with effect from 1.1.2006.

It is beneficial to quote the observations of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs Jaswant Singh Kanwar (supra), as under :

"15. Increment" has a definite concept in service law jurisprudence. It is an increase or addition on a fixed scale; it is a regular increase in salary on such a scale. As noted by this Court in State Bank of India Vs. The Presiding Officer, Central Government Labour Court, Dhanbad and Another, , under the Labour and Industrial Laws, an increment is when in a time scale of pay an employee advances from the lower point of scale to the higher by periodic additions. In other words, it is addition in the same scale and not to a higher scale. Increment is an incidence of employment and an employee gets an increment by working the full year and drawing full salary. During the period of suspension, the contract of service remains suspended. The order of suspension by the departmental enquiry has the effect of temporarily suspending the relations between the master and servant with the consequence that the servant is not bound to render service and, therefore, the petitioner as an employee is not entitled to increments during this period which is taken as period not spent on duty."

In view of the foregoing, we are of the firm view that the Tribunal has rightly held that the first respondent was entitled to enhanced subsistence allowance from 50% to 75% with effect from 1.11.2009 after completion of three months suspension period. However, the regular annual increment cannot be granted for the said period and also the subsistence allowance cannot be fixed by taking into account the regular annual increment, which the first respondent was not entitled to during the said period. The order of the Tribunal is set aside to that extent.

Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed partly to the above extent. No costs.